The Cancer’s Margins Project: Access to Knowledge and Its Mobilization by LGBQ/T Cancer Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual and/or gender minority populations (LGBQ/T) have particular cancer risks, lower involvement in cancer screening, and experience barriers in communication with healthcare providers. All of these factors increase the probability of health decisions linked with poor outcomes that include higher levels of cancer mortality. Persistent discrimination against, and stigmatization of, LGBQ/T people is reflected in sparse medical curriculum addressing LGBQ/T communities. Marginalization makes LGBQ/T persons particularly reliant on knowledge derived from online networks and mainstream media sources. In what is likely the first nationally-funded and nation-wide study of LGBQ/T experiences of cancer, the <em>Cancer’s Margins</em> project (www.lgbtcancer.ca) conducted face-to-face interviews with 81 sexual and/or gender minority patients diagnosed and treated for breast and/or gynecological cancer in five Canadian provinces and the San Francisco Bay area (US). With specific attention to knowledge access, sharing, and mobilization, our objective was to document and analyze complex intersectional relationships between marginalization, gender and sexuality, and cancer health decision-making and care experiences. Findings indicate that cancer care knowledge in online environments is shaped by cisnormative and heteronormative narratives. Cancer knowledge and support environments need, by contrast, to be designed by taking into account intersectionally diverse models of minority identities and communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it